David Ottewell: Argue on the facts, Mr Cameron – not the spin

Do you believe in truth? Do you believe the people running the country should be capable of constructive debate, based on facts? If so, look away now. The row between the government and Manchester council over swingeing town hall grant cuts this week went from disagreement to all-out verbal war.

Do you believe in truth? Do you believe the people running the country should be capable of constructive debate, based on facts?

If so, look away now. The row between the government and Manchester council over swingeing town hall grant cuts this week went from disagreement to all-out verbal war.

First, David Cameron branded the town hall’s cuts as ‘politically driven’.

“Manchester council is having its grant cut by 15 per cent,” he claimed. “That’s less than my council, which is being cut by 23 per cent. And yet it is cutting services by 25 per cent.

“I notice that it still has £100m in bank balances, and that its chief executive is paid more than £200,000 a year.

“I think people in Manchester will look at their council and say, ‘Cut out the waste, cut out the bureaucracy, start to cut the chief executive’s salary, and only then should you look at services.’”

Then, following in the prime minister’s wake, came Nick Clegg. Manchester, he said, had become ‘the slash and burn council of Britain’.

Mr Clegg compared the city with Sheffield and Stockport – neither of which are shutting libraries as a result of government cuts. “My fear is they are doing it to make a political point,” he said.

All of this is disappointing, dangerous – and disingenuous.

Disappointing because I expected better. The prime minister is no Thatcher-in-disguise. He has courted northern cities out of genuine one-nation instincts. He is a thoughtful, rational man.

Disappointing, too, because I’d hoped the government would engage at higher level of debate. Sir Howard Bernstein’s salary is irrelevant in the context of £100m-plus of grant cuts. And of all the council chief executives to single out, he is one whose track record in enabling huge private sector investment in the city stands for all to see. He’s virtually rebuilt Manchester.

Dangerous, because now the prime minister has spoken, the line has been drawn. The government has bared its teeth at Manchester. Any hope of a constructive solution appears to have been lost. That is a shame for both sides: Manchester is a Labour-run council that would have been willing to work with the coalition, boosting their one-nation credentials.

And disingenuous? I refer to the figures being quoted. There is a lot of nonsense flying around about the level of council cuts. Politicians – and some journalists – seem happy for this to become a ‘he said, she said’ row. Manchester claims it needs to cut X per cent. The government says the real figure is Y per cent. And so on.

But this isn’t a question of viewpoint. There is a truth – and it’s crucial.

How do we find it? We could start by looking at the figures published by the government on the day the grant settlement was announced. They are in a spreadsheet, for all to see.

So let’s check Mr Cameron’s sums. If we add up Manchester council’s government grants, we see these go from £485.7m in 2010-11 to £383.6m in 2012-13. That is a cut of 21pc.

Now let’s look at the prime minister’s council, West Oxfordshire. This is a tiny district council in a ‘two-tier’ area. If you live in West Oxfordshire, some of your services will be provided by West Oxfordshire council. The majority will be provided by Oxfordshire county council.

Here’s where Mr Cameron is right: West Oxfordshire goes from government grants of £6.4m in 2010-11 to £4.53m in 2012-13. That is a whopping 28.7pc cut. But Oxfordshire county council goes from £184.3m to 163.2m. That is a cut of just 11.4pc in a much bigger budget. We can’t easily work out what proportion of Oxfordshire’s budget goes on the people of West Oxfordshire. We can, however, add the grants to all the districts in Oxfordshire to the grants to the county council. That way, we can see how much has been cut from the council grants spent on the people of Oxfordshire as a whole.

The result? Down from £234.6m in 2010-11 to £198.9m in 2012-13. A reduction of 15.1 per cent – far less than Manchester in a county that is, by any measure, far less deprived.

As for Mr Clegg’s comparisons – Stockport emerges with a cut of just 13.8pc. Sheffield is down 19.5pc – a lot, but still less than far more deprived Manchester. And while libraries won’t close in Sheffield, its council has not yet said what it will cut.

I would encourage you – and fellow journalists in particular - to do the sums yourself rather than rely on press releases, unattributable ‘briefings’ and hand-outs. The same pattern emerges across the country. Northern, urban councils do badly. Southern, rural councils do better. And that is unfair.

Does Manchester council waste money? To some extent, probably, yes. The M.E.N. has highlighted examples and will continue to do so. But I suspect you’d find the same in any large organisation – even Oxfordshire county council.

Council waste is one issue. The fairness of the settlement is another. This settlement seems to penalise more deprived communities. That is wrong.

If Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg want to argue the opposite, fine. But they must do so on the facts.

Be honest about the central issue rather than throwing smoke about ‘non-jobs’ and statues and comedy courses and chauffeurs. Because it’s just not fair – and not very prime ministerial, either.